California’s Climate Overreach

From MasterResource

By Edward Ring

“The Affordable Insurance and Recovery Act (SB 982) would impose liability on fossil fuel companies for ‘climate-attributable damages,’ expected to be assessed in billions of dollars. It would empower California’s attorney general to sue the state’s oil companies without even needing to prove fault, negligence, or specific causation by an individual company.”

California is strangling its own energy base—then blaming oil companies for the predictable fallout of shortages, wildfires, and policies built on ideology instead of economics.

Even if the most dire climate scenarios are accurate, and humanity must transition away from fossil fuel, it can’t happen overnight. The rational approach is to first develop alternative sources of energy without precipitously destroying the industries that reliably produce oil and natural gas. Once alternatives are available at a competitive price and in sufficient quantities, demand naturally migrates to the alternatives. Meanwhile, the oil and gas industry, recognizing that their core business is to provide energy, actually stays healthy by also investing in the transition.

None of that is happening in California. The approach the state’s politicians have chosen is irrational and predatory. For more than twenty years, they have legislated and litigated the state’s oil and gas companies down to a fraction of their former size, making up most of the resulting energy shortage not with alternative energy, but with imports.

A recent and particularly brazen case of this ongoing harassment comes in the form of Senate Bill 982, something that only last week came perilously close to moving to a floor vote. Under the moral masquerade of requiring restitution for allegedly causing climate change, which in turn allegedly caused wildfires, what this bill really amounted to was a state-sponsored shakedown. SB 982 is a vivid example of how California’s legislature is determined to cannibalize and ultimately destroy entire industries in order to pay for disasters of their own making.

The so-called Affordable Insurance and Recovery Act (SB 982) would impose liability on fossil fuel companies for “climate-attributable damages,” expected to be assessed in billions of dollars. It would empower California’s attorney general to sue the state’s oil companies without even needing to prove fault, negligence, or specific causation by an individual company.

This bill is not only legalized extortion, but also a total disregard for economic reality. Combustible fuels remain the primary engine of civilization, and they’re not going anywhere for at least the next several decades. Despite this unavoidable fact, California’s in-state oil industry is already on the verge of implosion. The results are easily quantifiable.

Well production in the oil-rich state has fallen from over 400 million barrels per year in the 1980s to barely more than 100 million barrels per year in 2024. A major distribution pipeline from fields in Kern County to Northern California refineries was shut down in late 2025 because there wasn’t enough oil left to permit the pipeline to physically move oil through it, nor enough to make it possible for the operators to break even. Additional regulatory harassment has driven two of California’s major refineries to cease operations, leaving existing refinery capacity insufficient to meet demand. Californians now import 75 percent of their crude oil and, by some reports, now have to import 20 percent of their gasoline from refineries in Asia.

Against this backdrop, SB 982 wouldn’t even permit oil companies to recoup the billions that this predatory legislation will empower the state of California to extort from them. Where they could find the billions (trillions?) to pay for “climate attributable damages” if they can’t raise prices to consumers is unclear.

A similar disregard for economic reality is what motivated the introduction of SB 922 to begin with. For years, California’s semi-numerate insurance commissioners, driven by ideology, have made it difficult, if not impossible, for the state’s insurance companies to pass through to rate payers the increases to their own reinsurance payments or to increase rates to reflect updated risk assessments. Then, when wildfires immolated more than 13,000 homes in the Los Angeles area in early 2025, many insurance companies had already canceled coverage and left the state. The remaining insurers offering coverage, including California’s state-funded FAIR insurance plan, were overwhelmed. Without a bailout, these insurers cannot cover the claims.

But the entire premise of SB 982 is flawed. Culpability for the wildfires doesn’t rest with California’s oil companies. The California State Legislature created these disasters because, for decades, they have waged a regulatory assault on California’s timber industry, along with property owners and ranchers who used to engage in grazing, thinning, and controlled burns. In the Santa Monica Mountains surrounding the burned neighborhoods in Los Angeles, herds of sheep, goats, and cattle used to roam the hillsides, and property owners were able to thin overgrown vegetation on their own land as well as adjacent public land.

All of this became nearly impossible, thanks to interference in the form of hyper-regulatory oversight that effectively eliminated nearly all of the practices that had prevented California’s forests and wildlands from turning into tinderboxes. Trees and scrublands became overgrown, with the vegetation dried out and stressed not because of “climate change” but because natural and prescribed fires were suppressed at the same time any other form of thinning was all but banned. More than any other single factor, environmentalist extremism has caused California’s catastrophic wildfires.

Rather than admitting their culpability for the entire disaster, the wiped out homes, lost lives, and ensuing economic cataclysm, California’s state legislature blames oil companies. This entire charade is a prime exhibit of why climate change alarm in California has become, more than anything else, a scam designed to deflect responsibility for bad policies and to redistribute wealth and power to bureaucrats who haven’t shown the slightest evidence of learning from their decades of negligent opportunism.

Thanks to what capacity remains for rational climate policy in California, the targets of SB 982’s predatory scheme were able to stall its progress in the legislature this year. But the state’s appetite for seizing billions from disfavored industries isn’t going to go away. A “compromise” that almost had SB 982 sailing into law was to “permit” oil companies to earn “credits” against eventual judgments if they could prove they invested in wind, solar, and carbon capture schemes, all of which are deemed to lower emissions. Notwithstanding the subjective and economically draining morass of “carbon accounting,” this supposed compromise will only intensify; it is yet another way to further impose on oil companies the responsibility for funding projects that, in many cases, are patently ridiculous, such as direct air capture of CO₂, or blatantly destructive to the environment, such as floating offshore wind.

The example California is setting with its war on fossil fuel is not anything for residents in other states to take lightly. The state’s particularly virulent strain of climate overreach is a national disease, stronger in some states than in others, but spreading its contagion everywhere. In 2007, despite having an allegedly conservative majority, the US Supreme Court actually found CO₂ to be a pollutant that could be subject to regulation by the US EPA. The Trump administration has directed the EPA to reverse the regulations that followed the decision, but an incoming Democratic administration will bring it all back.

Anyone still believing that extreme climate shakedowns will be confined to blue states should read a brilliant national overview of the problem. Published in the Spring 2026 edition of City Journal, “The Climate Litigation Swindle” is written by Heather Mac Donald, a researcher noted for uncommon diligence and impeccable logic. In a nearly 6,000 word essay, Mac Donald describes several avenues of litigation being pursued by climate activists throughout the United States. The audacity of these lawsuits is only matched by their vapidity. But that won’t stop lower courts, or a US Supreme Court, should it end up packed and flipped by a new Democratic administration, from granting credence to every absurdity these creative litigants can possibly conjure.

Climate extremists are part of a larger sickness infecting America. They are part of a movement that seeks to undermine our economy, discredit capitalism, disparage Western civilization and Western traditions, spread fear, resentment, despair and self loathing among our youth, and, through their ignorance and fanaticism, deny Americans the opportunities that preceding generations have taken for granted. They are a menace. They must be stopped.

—————–

Edward Ring is a senior fellow of The Center for American Greatness, where this article appeared. He is also the director of water and energy policy for the California Policy Center, which he co-founded in 2013 and served as its first president. Ring is the author of Fixing California: Abundance, Pragmatism, Optimism (2021) and The Abundance Choice: Our Fight for More Water in California (2022).